Mr. Speaker, the government decided not to renew grants to a number of social organizations, claiming that they no longer meet the established criteria. But these organizations help the very people who are not eligible for the tax credits offered by the government for sports and cultural activities, the very people for whom the $1,200 offered directly to families is not enough to pay for childcare.

Why does the government only care about the most fortunate members of society?

Diane FinleyConservativeMinister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Mr. Speaker, our party believes that parents are in the best position to decide how to raise their children. We therefore give them $100 a month for each child under the age of six, so that they can choose childcare that is most appropriate for their family.

Mr. Speaker, as the Conservatives' punishing refugees act goes to the other place, the opposition to Conservative attacks on refugee health care is growing. The Canadian Medical Association and seven other national medical organizations have warned the minister that these changes could be catastrophic.

I want to ask the minister the same question that doctors who treat refugees are asking. Are we, as a country, willing to risk the health of a pregnant mother? Is this the kind of Canada the minister and the Conservatives really want?

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member asked the question because it once more reinforces that the New Democratic Party is in favour of giving extra supplementary taxpayer-funded health benefits that are not available to taxpaying Canadian citizens, and that is just wrong.

We are standing on the principle that there should be equal access to health care and that bogus asylum claimants should not be getting health benefits. They should be leaving Canada. Asylum claimants will be getting basic care but no better care than what provincial governments give to taxpaying Canadians. We stand by that.

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that all of these changes to immigration will merely transfer costs to the provinces, which he refused to consult.

The most vulnerable people in the country will pay the price. The Canadian Paediatric Society has sounded the alarm. If these changes go through, a child with pneumonia may be denied access to antibiotics; a child with diabetes may be denied access to a doctor; a pregnant woman may be denied prenatal care.

Mr. Speaker, our reforms will provide health insurance to resettled refugees and the vast majority of asylum seekers, but refugees will no longer receive federal health insurance that Canadian taxpayers do not receive. We believe that supplementary insurance should not be provided to asylum seekers. We believe that people should be treated fairly the same way we treat Canadian citizens and permanent residents.

I know it deeply saddens my NDP and Liberal colleagues but today is the day when hard-working Canadians no longer have to send tax dollars into three levels of government. On this side of the House, our Conservative government believes that Canadian families should pay low taxes, and that is why, since taking office in 2006, we have taken steps to lower the tax burden on Canadian families to its lowest point in over 50 years.

Would the Minister of Finance please inform the House how much earlier tax freedom day takes place today than it did when we took office?

Mr. Speaker, for five years, the Conservatives have battled disabled veterans, including Dennis Manuge, in court to justify pension clawbacks. The disabled vets prevailed.

For the last four years, Royal Canadian Mounted Police veterans have been locked in a similar law suit against the government to stop clawbacks of their pensions. Gerald Buote from Summerside led the suit but has passed away waiting for resolution.

Will the Conservative government again throw everything at the RCMP vets to deny their legal rights or do the honourable thing and include them in the discussions arising out of the Manuge victory in the Federal Court?

Mr. Speaker, we have been very proud of the work that we have done with the RCMP. For example, we invested over $150 million in the Depot Division in Regina to ensure that what happened under the Liberal Party does not happen again where it shut down training at Depot.

That is the party that turned its back on the RCMP. We will continue to work with the RCMP and ensure that Canadians are safe.

Mr. Speaker, a G20 planning document by the Canadian Forces listed a number of potential security threats, among them, embarrassment to the Government of Canada.

It is too bad it did not listen because that is exactly what happened. It cannot plan the largest civil security undertaking in Canadian history on the back of an envelope in four short months. The results were smashed windows, illegal arrests and a city turned upside down.

After so many G20 failures, will the government finally do something right and apologize to the people of Toronto?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would know that security decisions around the G8 and G20 summits were made by security experts, not politicians.

In fact, the members of the Canadian Forces, who supported the RCMP and the municipal and provincial police, were there to provide security for Canadians and for our international guests. This was an unprecedented period in our country's history with the G8 and G20 coming back to back.

I am very proud of the work that was done by members of the Canadian Forces.

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is cutting red tape to ensure our veterans receive the benefits and services they deserve more quickly.

We have already taken several steps through the cutting red tape for veterans initiative. These include reducing the paperwork and wait time for veterans, using plain language in its letters to veterans, and moving to upfront payments to veterans for certain elements of the veterans independence program.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Huron—Bruce for his support for veterans and for bringing the Helmets to Hardhats partners to the table.

This morning, I spoke to the Royal Canadian Legion in Halifax and announced a new measure to cut red tape for veterans who travel for medical purposes.

With these new measures, veterans will no longer have to submit receipts to receive the financial support they need to cover travel expenses incurred for medical appointments. Dominion president, Pat Varga, says that any change or improvement that makes the process easier for veterans is great.

Mr. Speaker, for a year now, the Government of Quebec and the NDP have been asking the federal government to help more than 1,000 families that have been forced to rebuild their basements because of the presence of pyrrhotite in the concrete.

Since the NDP made this request, the Conservatives have still not reviewed the federal standards on the composition of concrete and have still not provided any financial support to the families that have had to spend an average of $200,000 on repairs.

The Government of Quebec, the municipalities and even businesses have already done their share. Why are the Conservatives dragging their feet on this file?

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of National Defence. I was surprised to hear him claim that decisions around the G20 were made by security experts.

Since the G20 for 2010 had already been planned for November in South Korea, since the Prime Minister of Canada decided to offer up Canada for a second G20 in the same year, at more or less the last minute, and since the Prime Minister decided to put it in downtown Toronto over the objections of the mayor of Toronto, what security expert dictated these decisions to the Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker, I repeat that security issues, security matters and decisions around the G8 and G20 were made by experts, not by the Prime Minister and not by politicians. They were made in close consultation among a number of departments, including Public Safety as well as the Department of National Defence. There were preparations in place for acts of possible disruption, planned violence, civil disobedience and even for some sort of terrorist attack. Those decisions are best made by experts.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege arising from question period, the comments of the Minister of National Defence and his personal attack unleashed on me in response to a question.

On this side, we are used to the practice on the other side, which has become commonplace, of attacking the party by saying that we did not vote for a particular measure, even though we all know, as parliamentarians, that when an opposition party votes against the budget, it is a matter of confidence in the budget. We are used to that.

However, when the minister in this case launched a personal attack on me and went so far as to use unparliamentary language in his attack on me, that goes beyond even just the use of unparliamentary language, which I hope he will apologize for and withdraw, but it also goes beyond that into a personal attack on a member, suggesting, in frankly a deceitful way, that when we vote against the budget, we are voting against a particular measure, one or another.

We all know that there are $250 billion in the budget and there are many things in it that of course we support, but this practice and this personal attack is unparliamentary and is a matter of personal privilege.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is used to being in a court of law. The facts, on their voting record, do speak for themselves.

With respect to the personal attack, I do know, having been here a number of years, that the use of the word “hypocrite”, which I referred to the hon. member for St. John's East as a hypocrite, and I apologize for calling him a hypocrite, and I reserve the word “hypocrite” in reference to the member for St. John's East.

Mr. Speaker, during a statement I made in the House on Friday, there was an error where remarks I quoted could have been attributed to the member for Saint-Jean. I want to be clear that the member for Saint-Jean made no such statement and I in no way meant to attribute those remarks to him.

Upon becoming aware of this error, I apologized to the member, and have ensured that Hansard is now accurate.

I wish to publicly apologize to that member for any inconvenience this may have caused.